Talk:Wolfbane
"Wolfbane": a "Wolfsbane" synonym :This article bases itself on the untrue notion that "Wolfbane", despite similarities to the terms "Wolf's'''bane" and "Wolf'`s''' Bane", does not refer to a real plant (Aconitum), is a plant invented by Brian Jacques and is confined, naturally, to the Redwall world. :While "Wolf's Bane" and "Wolfsbane" are indeed terms for Aconitum, so is "Wolfbane". As such, the term "Wolfbane" does refer to a real plant (Aconitum) just as the other terms do. :"Wolfbane" as a term is merely less common where use is concerned. Wiktionary lists it as an alternate (but not incorrect) spelling of "Wolfsbane". :: :Also, the article states that "wolf's bane" is a type of tobacco and is a separate plant from "wolfsbane". While the term "wolf's bane" is used to refer to Arnica, it is also used as a synonym of "wolfbane" and "wolfsbane". :Wikipedia states on the page for the Arnica genus: "Arnica is also known by the names Mountain Tobacco and, somewhat confusingly, Leopard's bane and Wolf's bane— two names that it shares with the entirely unrelated genus Aconitum." :Let's just accept that Wolfsbane, Wolfbane, and Wolf's bane all refer to real-world plants. Even the description of wolfbane in the book as a dangerous poison was accurate as a description for Aconitum. (Tuûr!) 21:44, May 16, 2015 (UTC) ::Oh, wow. I never really bothered looking up herbs (like this one) that are referred to in Redwall before. I'd always just assumed that they were real plants. ::Being a tad slow on the uptake, it took me about 15 minutes before I fully grasped what you were saying. So just to be sure, you're saying that Wolfbane is a slightly less-used name for a real plant, and thus this article doesn't belong on this wiki for that reason? --Reep Lightingflash - Anybody got cheese? 23:38, May 16, 2015 (UTC) :::Mostly so, but not exactly the point of the post. Wolfsbane, Wolf's Bane, and Wolfbane all refer to Aconitum (usually to A. lycoctonum), and all three terms appear to also be used to refer to A. montana as well. :::The reason I placed this here and didn't simply remove the reference on the page is that that piece of trivia was added by an administrator. It has been a standing spoken guideline around here that if an admin added a piece, any opposition to the statement should be placed on the talk page. Reverting admin edits isn't generally accepted unless I first give an explanation on the article talk page. Whether or not the page itself belongs on Redwall Wiki is entirely up to LordTBT and it was never my intention to suggest its complete removal; simply a removal of the trivia stating (erroneously) that Wolfbane is not a real-world plant, and also the categorization of it as a Redwall-exclusive object when it is in fact not a Redwall-exclusive plant- or anything else Redwall-exclusive, for that matter. However, on the other hand, it does make sense having the Redwall Objects attached to it if this is not meant in a way that would infer Redwall-exclusivity. It definitely was of some importance to the books and seems to be a recurring poison- although Poison Hemlock (C. maculatum), Deadly Nightshade (A. belladonna), and extracted adders' venom (wiped on sword blades, etc.) seem to be similarly popular amongst poisoners, yet they do not receive pages. (Tuûr!) 04:39, May 17, 2015 (UTC) :Do you have any sources that are not Wiktionary or thefreedictionary? Unfortunately, these are not scientific journals or valid sources. -- LordTBT Talk! 05:57, May 17, 2015 (UTC) ::Does this help? Best I could find. http://www.naturalmedicinalherbs.net/herbs/a/aconitum-lycoctonum-vulparia=wolfbane.php --Reep Lightingflash - Anybody got cheese? 17:20, May 17, 2015 (UTC) :::The scientific name for A. lycoctonum is... A. lycoctonum. The colloquial terms, also known as "common names" for the plant, are governed by colloquial English, not science. The dictionary is a valid source in this particular case, since "Wolfsbane", "Wolf's bane", and "Wolfbane" are not scientific terms for the plant- they're all colloquial English names for it. Saying that the dictionary is not a valid source for colloquial English terms simply doesn't hold water, with all due respect. :::That's like saying that I would have to find a scientific journal to prove that we call dandelions "dandelions", even though "dandy lion" was an old colloquial English name for the plant, which can be found first and foremost in a dictionary. I don't have to find a technical automotive engineering book to prove that "automobile" is a synonym of "car". I would, however, have to find a dictionary to prove that the two terms were interchangeable in English. :::If English defines that a particular type of lizard is called a "sand gecko", then that creature is called a "Sand gecko", end of story. If, on the other hand, I just decided to call a sand gecko a "hippopotamus", then we would check a dictionary and find that there was no valid source to back up my claim. Science does not define the English language, and furthermore especially not colloquial English terms. The only thing science has in common with wolfbane is that they call it "A. lycoctonum", by jove. :::To sate your appetite, however, I have found another original journal source which I place beside Reep's, which can be found here. Also, there's another plant growing in southern Spain, the isle of Malta, the northernmost tip of Africa, and possibly parts of Italy referred to directly and officially as "Wolfbane", which can be found in a scientific study called "Flora of the Maltese Islands"- found here. (Tuûr!) 19:31, May 17, 2015 (UTC) :Biggren, it is not the rejection of "a dictionary," but a rejection of "the free dictionary." That's not acceptable as a valid source in any professional circles. There are only two dictionaries that are taken seriously, and acceptable - Merriam-Webster, as cited by the AP, and the Oxford English Dictionary. The first linked journal is from 1865 - a tad bit outdated. The second link is a self-published book and therefore not reliable. -- LordTBT Talk! 20:05, May 17, 2015 (UTC) ::Ahhh, I understand where you're coming from. (It was, however, self-published by a botanist and scientist who studies herbs clearly on a regular basis, possibly as a business- lots of scientists self-publish; that doesn't make them irrelevant or no longer valid). But let's just say that he's irrelevant anyway and forget that, for the sake of argument. Also, you say Wiktionary is invalid, even though we regularly use Wikipedia on here as a source. While I must admit The Free Dictionary doesn't hold that same status, the Wiktionary and Wikipedia projects are well-respected as sources, albeit not in the "official" scientific community. But we aren't a scientific community; we're simply trying to figure out whether or not wolfbane is a real plant. ::Also: ::Just how is 1865 too old when it comes to science, however? If the scientific term hasn't changed since 1865, it is still applicable today. I see no evidence that "wolfbane" has fallen out of use since 1865. Also, what about Reep's source? (Tuûr!) 20:12, May 17, 2015 (UTC) :::We don't use WP as a source for anything...we sometimes link out to it, but it's not a source here. If the term is relevant, there should be a modern source. Fairly simple. -- LordTBT Talk! 20:53, May 17, 2015 (UTC) ::::Yes, you do. The article for which this is the talk page states that "wolf's bane" and "wolfsbane" are two different plants, and backs this up with Wikipedia articles. That's called Wikipedia sourcing. ::::: ::::But that's besides the point and has nothing to do with the present conversation. The point is that wolfbane is also a real plant, and is in fact the same plant as wolfsbane. I have another source, this time from the CRC, a well-respected scientific publication organization, written by Dr. Robert Alan Lewis, an accredited Biology PhD and Master of Science from the University of Washington and the Ohio State University respectively. He wrote two separate sections in the CRC Dictionary of Agricultural Sciences listing Wolfbane as a valid term for Aconitum here and here. (Tuûr!) 21:06, May 17, 2015 (UTC) :::::We are not using the WP articles as a source for this article. They are not sources for the content - they're being linked out if a reader would like to learn more on their own. :::::I think what you're failing to observe here is the true lengths you're going to demonstrate this is a proper term. If this truly was the case, why would you be using a 14-year-old book with one author to prove your point? It is difficult to believe this data when the term doesn't appear in Merriam-Webster, the go-to source for the Associated Press, nor does any article or publication appear in a Google search for "wolfbane" - at least not in the first 5 pages of results. Nor does there seem to be any current textbooks or research, anything from the current decade to indicate this is an actual term for the plant. Why do you think that is? -- LordTBT Talk! 23:48, May 17, 2015 (UTC) Perhaps because the terms 'Wolfsbane' and 'Wolf's Bane' became more used for Aconitum than 'Wolfbane', meaning that the terms all refer to the same plant, just that one term has become outdated? --Reep Lightingflash - Anybody got cheese? 01:14, May 18, 2015 (UTC) ::::::LordTBT, you hit the nail right on the head. I'm using a 14-year old book because Outcast of Redwall was written in 1995, which is when that term was still in use. It would be peculiar to use modern terms and apply them to an old book. I use a source proving that "wolfbane" meant Aconitum in 1995, when the book was written. Whether or not "wolfbane" is obsolete in 2015 has no relevance to whether or not it meant what it meant in 1995, which is the context we're dealing with here. It wasn't written using modern terms, because, unfortunately, Jacques didn't have access to a 2015 agricultural science dictionary in 1995- he had to make do with terms that were in use at the time. (Tuûr!) 02:35, May 18, 2015 (UTC) :I have altered the page's language, so that it's not suggested that a "wolfbane" plant doesn't exist, but I don't think it should be considered a 'synonym' as not enough evidence exists. I hope this is a fair compromise. -- LordTBT Talk! 02:35, May 18, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Alright. I agree that it shouldn't still be considered a synonym today in 2015, although it was a synonym back when he wrote the book. ::::::P.S: Our posts had an error: "edit conflict" because they were posted at the same time. I corrected it now to make sure it's clear that my reply wasn't a reply to your most recent post. It's part of the shelved discussion. I'm glad we came to an agreement on it, because my main concern here is the accuracy of articles on Redwall Wiki, not just some botanical references to wolfbane and arguments about wikipedia. :) (Tuûr!) 03:58, May 18, 2015 (UTC) :::::::Not enough evidence could be found, so I dug a little deeper into the mesh that we call the scientific commune, and I found another source...this time from the NIH. You know, searching through botanical sources is actually pretty interesting, like a puzzle or a mathematic equation. :::::::It says the term was introduced to their database in 2003; if a term is no longer used in the scientific community, NIH will remove it from their database when the next update comes around (they aren't an abandoned site so government updates are frequent). They haven't removed this one so far. NIH lists "Wolfbane" as the primary common name for Aconitum- something rather unexpected for me. I was expecting perhaps at the very most a quiet mention of it as an outdated synonym, but no. Most peculiar. :::::::No, this isn't a continuation of the discussion. Just adding more sources whenever I come across them- although I doubt I'll find any sources that are better than this one found at the National Institute of Health of the United States- a government agency, no less, and the premier authority on scientific research in the United States. The "that's an old outdated book" argument doesn't apply to nih.org, which isn't a book, but a massive, concise, frequently updated, ever-changing body of scientific study and discovery. It's a fully-functional, running website run by the NIH, receiving regular updates when terms change in the scientific community. Apparently it has not changed. Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh?term=wolfbane (Tuûr!) 09:07, May 18, 2015 (UTC) :::::::It seems I've found yet another term in this next one: "Wolf bane", with a space between "Wolf" and "Bane". Another source, this time from Dr. Karen A. Baker, M.S., R. Ph. Assoc. Professor at the University of Iowa, Deptartment of Clinical and Administrative Pharmacy. This is a study on the effects of herbs on periodontal health. Press Ctrl + F and type in "Wolfbane" on the article. Source: http://www.perio.org/sites/default/files/files/PDFs/Meetings/2012AM/FCE5_Baker.pdf :::::::: :::::::Here's a file on Expertscape: http://www.expertscape.com/go/aconitum , and before it is discredited as just "being another random website", here is their lengthy list of experts on the subject of herbology, and in particular in this instance, Aconitum. Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of New South Wales, University of Hong Kong, University of Vienna, University of Tokyo...to name a few. To copy that entire list here would require a lot of bullet points, and that's an understatement. They have experts on herbology from each one of these colleges and universities. Follow the links of each one of those universities and you'll find links to articles on Aconitum from these universities- the University of Hong Kong has 7 articles, all written from 2009 - 2013, for example. Those are used as direct back up for the Expertscape article stating that Aconitum is called Wolfbane. All of Dr. Thomas Y. K. Chan's articles are in the NIH database, by the way. Those universities are well-known and reputable. None of the articles are from before 2005, because they make sure that they keep only articles from within 10 years of 2015 to avoid obsolescence. ::::::::: ::::::::Let's go over all my sources so far, excluding the Journal from 1865 (still has no explanation of why it's obsolete- just saying it's "old" doesn't cut it; that's like saying On the Origin of Species is obsolete just because it's old) and the botanist's self-published study of African Wolfbane, which is not necessarily of bad repute, but I understand where the opposition to such a book was coming from and I'll leave it out of the source list for that reason. ::::::::: ::::::::*http://hof.skola.edu.mt/flora.html - Note: It's a .edu all about farming on Malta, published by the government of Malta and is backed by Maltese resources and scientists. Impossible to discredit or dismiss. Ctrl + F "Wolfbane" ::::::::*http://www.expertscape.com/go/aconitum - Backed by a multitude of accredited universities and botanical scientists, with listings of the articles and scientists backing it up. Nothing is from before 2005 there. ::::::::*http://www.perio.org/sites/default/files/files/PDFs/Meetings/2012AM/FCE5_Baker.pdf - Appears to be a recent publication, but I couldn't find an exact date, so this may possibly be dismissable as obsolete, although not necessarily so. Ctrl + F "Wolf bane" ::::::::*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh?term=wolfbane - NIH.gov is the official, concise website of the National Institute of Health of the United States. Backed by every serious, accredited medical and botanical scientist in the continental United States. ::::::::*http://books.google.com/books?id=CRC&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=wolfbane - CRC Dictionary of Agricultural Medicine. From 2001, so slightly on the old side, but not necessarily "obsolete" at all. "Old book by this one guy" was a flatly plain dismissal of it and its author, an accredited scientist from Ohio State University. Some content is possibly outdated, but not necessarily the term "wolfbane". ::::::::: ::::::::All done. That said, this isn't a continuation of the discussion or an argument on either side of it. It's a list of sources and short explanations for them. (Tuûr!) 16:51, May 18, 2015 (UTC)